I believe the Miniature Dachshund Club wants to hold its Championship Show in conjunction with WODAC next year, but as that club is in the NAPC they have so far been refused permission because The Dome is in D.O.G.S PC area. The only loser in this debacle is our sport, particularly as the Mini Dachshund is a very popular breed with the public.

We must focus on the important issues and not be restrained by artificial boundaries and restrictive and outdated rules. WODAC also received positive TV coverage on certain programmes that can only benefit dogs.

Question 2 : What strategy do you propose for KUSA to change the perceptions of organisations like the NSPCA (National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) and SAVC (South African Veterinary Council) about purebred dogs and what mediating role, if any, do you see KUSA playing in the ongoing debates around health issues and tail-docking?
Mr Thompson: Apart from the education mentioned above for the public at large, we need to establish contact with the organisations mentioned at local level, not just at the national level. The debate obviously goes way beyond the two organisations in question. There is harsh anti-dog and - cat legislation being proposed by certain States in the USA, contemplating not only rules similar to the dangerous dog laws passed in certain European countries, but much more drastic measures like AB1634, the compulsory sterilisation of pets. In the UK, the BBC is considering withdrawing TV coverage of Crufts primarily due to the contention that current breeding practices have caused genetically induced illnesses in dogs.

Should we be faced with similar problems here, the cost of participating in the debate will be high. That is why dissemination of positive news about dogs is so important. I haven't been informed of exactly how far discussions with the NSPCA and SAVC have progressed, but I believe it's important to keep the channels of dialogue open and to investigate areas of cooperation. An adversarial relationship with either the NSPCA, or SAVC, is in nobody's interest.

Question 3 : In what way do you believe KUSA should assist its members living in urban areas with dog-unfriendly laws?
Mr Thompson: Possibly the Accredited Breeders' Scheme introduced by KUSA could be used by members as a lever to get exemption from their local by-laws in certain circumstances. However, dog owners and breeders should also be encouraged to engage with their councils with a view to seeking local solutions. In this regard KUSA can fulfil an important advisory function and provide support in the form of literature on canine sport and activities and on the important role dogs play in society as workers, guardians, therapists and companions.

Question 4: What is your vision for KUSA - short term, medium term and long term - and why do you think you are the best person to realise this vision?
Mr Thompson: I am sure there are many people qualified to hold the office of President. Historically the President has been chosen from among the FEDCO members and, due to the nomination process, there are now only two candidates to choose from.

In the short term we need to get marketing plans discussed and agreed by FEDCO and implemented by the office. We also need much more involvement from the members through their Provincial Councils. It is, in my view, not sufficient for Councils to meet only twice a year, primarily to consider the FEDCO agenda. It is also not advisable to have only two FEDCO meetings per year. There should be at least four FEDCO meetings per annum. All the meetings needn't be face to face; certain meetings by teleconference would be quite acceptable. This would dramatically speed up the process of effecting changes and resolving issues and problems and also save on travel costs.

The direction KUSA should take must come from its members and affiliated clubs. Impracticable rules and antiquated practices must obviously be reviewed and changed, but the key driver should be what the members want to change in order to improve our sport. KUSA must be driven by its member clubs and not led by the nose from the top.

A further short term objective would be to put a focussed succession plan into action. Potential future leaders need to be identified, mentored and inducted to ensure smooth and seamless transition.

We should try to stop our sport becoming more elitist which, in the medium term, would mean getting more people involved in the working disciplines as the cost barrier to participation is lower. The working disciplines are essentially what the public enjoy watching and they are undoubtedly the best PR for dogs.

Apart from the obvious ideals of building a stronger, more effective and more vibrant organisation of which the entire membership can be proud, long term prospects need to be decided by the members through their Provincial Councils and, ultimately, by the principal decision-making body, however constituted in future.

Question 5: How do you propose to repair the divisions which have developed in the membership around issues of governance and affiliation in order to re-unite SA dogdom behind KUSA?
Mr Thompson: We are all involved in a wonderful past-time and there should be no divisions. I would encourage the members of the various Provincial Councils to speak to each other outside of their formal structures and discuss mutual problems. A classic need is in the Gauteng area where the Executives of the two “rival” provinces ought to meet to discuss matters of common concern. Even if there are areas of conflict and variance of opinion, at least some mutual problems can be addressed and overcome. We shall always have conflicting interests, whether campaigning for top show dog, or trying to hold the biggest show. We need to rise above that and talk to each other.

We also have the problem that the working disciplines feel marginalised as the breed people maintain that they provide the bulk of the income to shows and KUSA. If we want to achieve inclusivity, we need to promote greater understanding and tolerance for each other's preferences, needs and aspirations. Why not organise social days (picnics, braais) where one or more of the working disciplines can be introduced to the broader dog community?

Question 6: How do you propose to ensure KUSA's financial sustainability in a climate of declining interest in dog-showing and escalating travel costs?
Mr Thompson: The real drivers here are the breed clubs and the working discipline clubs. To improve financial sustainability, one needs more people to become actively involved. How do we achieve that? By encouraging puppy buyers to show their dogs, even if it were just at your club show. Encourage the owners of dogs that are brought to puppy training to enter Beginners Class at a local Obedience Show. AND, most importantly, encourage them and help those who agree to do any of these things. Don't sit there in isolation, secretly hoping the newcomers will lose.

To encourage more entries at our shows and thereby increase revenue for clubs and KUSA, one idea might be to look into the possibility of introducing a Baby Puppy Class (4 – 6 months) at Championship Shows. This is a standard class in many countries and is essentially used by exhibitors to get their puppies show-trained.

It's imperative for KUSA to start looking at alternative methods of income other than expecting the membership to bear increases in fees year after year. For instance, show levies provide much income for the organisation and it's my view that in these days of ever-increasing travel costs and shrinking entries it is short-sighted not to investigate the possibility of allowing clubs to hold more than one championship show per year should they wish to do so. The financial benefits to KUSA and clubs are obvious and, of course, in areas where championship shows are sparse, exhibitors would also feel the benefit of being able to pursue their hobby more easily. This would help to encourage new exhibitors to stay in the game.

We must also look at providing real benefits to members such as negotiating with airlines for travel discounts when exhibitors and their dogs fly to shows, obtaining discounts from dog food manufacturers, animal product manufacturers, veterinary practices, etc. I am sure that members could come up with a myriad of suggestions on which the office could follow up. We should be able to negotiate benefits at no cost to KUSA and probably without any kickback to KUSA.

While on the subject of economics, I need to comment on the fears expressed that a significant Gauteng presence on FEDCO might lead to the KUSA offices being relocated to Johannesburg. I would view such a move as a total waste of our limited financial resources and, given modern communication options, as completely unnecessary. The cost of even moving the furniture will be prohibitive, not to mention the cost of staff relocation and staff training should the existing staff members not wish to leave Cape Town. Since a move to Johannesburg makes no economic sense at all, I shall oppose any proposal to move the KUSA offices from Cape Town.

Question 7: What do you regard as the best business plan for KUSA going forward?
Mr Thompson: We must obviously remain aware of other possible contenders proposing to provide the same services as KUSA provides, since there are very few restrictions on competitive practices in this day and age. To give us the competitive edge, our registration systems and overall controls need to stand up to the highest levels of scrutiny and this is one of the areas of KUSA's administration about which we can feel extremely proud. There is always room for improvement, but this comes at a cost, so one would need to determine whether the cost is worth the potential benefit.

A well-targeted marketing effort should raise awareness of KUSA and its objectives and the benefits of membership. Although only one of several of KUSA's revenue streams, increased membership revenue is a definite means of ensuring KUSA's financial sustainability and its future. It is therefore of critical importance for the benefits of belonging to KUSA to be identified and, if possible, improved.

Question 8 : The need for constitutional reform having been identified some time ago, how do you see the ideal of a new KUSA constitution, based on democratic principles, being achieved and in what time-frame?
Mr Thompson: We first need to establish whether the members want a new constitution. The last attempt at change came at a considerable cost to all of us and ended in a rejection of the alternatives by almost all Provincial Councils. If the present constitution is applied as intended, and the Provincial Councils provide their input, then there's no reason why the current system can't work.

I am aware that some people want a system where individual members can vote on all issues, but that becomes fairly unwieldy and we would end up with a Swiss type of referendum structure which is not only unsuitable, but also costly to manage. That doesn't necessarily mean that the members shouldn't have a direct say in certain matters. There are certainly circumstances where a referendum-type vote is appropriate and desirable and the constitution should allow for that.

Constitutional change should be driven by the membership, and necessary changes to the current constitution to bring it into line with national laws and accepted democratic principles can be made relatively easily over a couple of years. One example of such constitutional reform might be to limit the terms of office-bearers.

It might also be of benefit to clubs and members for KUSA to publish a "user-friendly" guide to the constitution, enabling those who have neither the time, nor the inclination, to wade through the legalese contained in the constitution, to familiarise themselves with the rules and regulations contained in the Articles and Schedules.

I also feel that, at the very least, an annual think-tank could be held in all provinces, open to all members, where problems experienced by exhibitors from all disciplines and new ideas and suggestions could be discussed. I know our membership contains a wealth of intelligent people who would be prepared to help, but whose voices are seldom heard within the present system.

Question 8 : It is generally recognised that we are running out of judges and that some of our judges have a poor record of competence.  How can the Judges' Qualifying Scheme be improved by getting people through the system quicker while increasing their breed knowledge and assessment skills?
Mr Thompson: Various suggestions have been made to me by judges. As with all disciplines, the National Sub-Committees are the specialist bodies responsible for suggesting changes to rules to FEDCO. The National Judges' Sub-Committee is charged with running the Judges' Qualifying Scheme and they must look for alternatives and improvements with input from judges, prospective judges and the Provincial Councils.

I believe we need examinations for judges to ensure that the candidates are conversant with the rules, regulations and breed standards. The usual question raised is whether the submission of reports should be part of the scheme. I don't agree that we should revert to the old system of judging two open shows and away you go, but there might be other ways of assessing prospective judges' practical assessment skills and judgment. I would therefore recommend to the NJSC to appoint a small task team, not necessarily involving any of its members, but co-opting judges who have actually been through the current scheme, as well as qualified educators, to research other schemes and come up with recommendations.

I recognise that the current Judges' Qualifying Scheme, although serviceable, is flawed and d au nting to those who wish to start judging. If a way can be found to encourage more people to join the scheme and to accelerate their qualification, without compromising standards, I'd be the first to support it. As I'm fully aware that we're “running out of judges”, it would be remiss of me not setting this as one of my priorities.

SHOWDOGS wishes to thank Mr David Thompson most sincerely for his participation in this interview.